Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: FlightGear 2.10 is now available !

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MdMax View Post
    There's one aspect where FlightGear is a lot better than any other sim (X-Plane/FS2004/FSX/P3D/aeroflyFS/DCS...)
    There's another aspect where it's worse. I have an integrated Intel HD Graphics (Core i3). The FlightGear default C172 gives only an unuseable 5 fps at the end of the runway 01L at the default San Francisco International airport - Using FSX the default C172 gives 45+ fps in the same default location. See the attached images, which also show a difference in quality.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FG.jpg 
Views:	140 
Size:	137.0 KB 
ID:	143365   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FSX.jpg 
Views:	160 
Size:	182.5 KB 
ID:	143366  

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auburn, KY, United States.
    Posts
    156

    Default

    I said that it looked a lot like FS2000 because it does not have all the eye candy we are used to now, like photoreal cockpits and clickable everything. I never said I did not like it, by the way FS2000 is FS7, not 4. I particularly like the fact that on the scenery there are buildings to mark the cities, not just a slightly different color on the landclass. In this way it surpasses FS9, which almost never has any buildings except the skyscrapers.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auburn, KY, United States.
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Flightgear says in its manual that it runs on openGL. DirectX is a proprietary Microsoft way of handling graphics and the would need to pay Microsoft to use it. Most NVidia cards have openGL support but only some of the ATI/AMD cards do. If you have somthing like Intel onboard graphics hang it up, but again if you had that you would not be playing FSX

    My computer gets about 20-24 fps with Flightgear with a 2.7ghz duel core Athlon and a ATI 4670 graphics card. I would suggest you check for drivers for your card that might have better OpenGL support.

    The open GNU license allows anyone to make anything for it and I am sure support will go up if people are interested. The code is open and accessible and you (correct me if I am wrong) do not need any hugely expensive software to modify it. I encourage people, give it a try. It is not FSX and does not claim to be, what it is is free, user supported and runs just fine on an older duel core machine if you have the right graphics card.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jefferysitz View Post
    Flightgear says in its manual that it runs on openGL. DirectX is a proprietary Microsoft way of handling graphics and the would need to pay Microsoft to use it.
    There's no charge for DirectX

    Quote Originally Posted by jefferysitz View Post
    The open GNU license allows anyone to make anything for it and I am sure support will go up if people are interested.
    But how many people have the ability and the interest in writing code to develop it?

    I realised that previously I'd run FSX limited to 50 fps. Setting that to unlimited gave an average of 67 fps compared with FG's 6 fps.

    I also did a comparison on my desktop which has an Nvidia GT520 card. FSX gave an average of 122 fps and FG's average was 37 fps. That's still only about half the rate FSX gives with on my laptop with Intel integrated graphics.

  5. #15

    Default

    All the tools you'd need to work with FG are open source as well. If you have a linux box, odds are you already have most of them

    The problem with DirectX is it's for Microsoft platforms only, in particular it isn't available with linux or Apple (emulators such as Boot Camp aside). One might say "who cares, most of the machines out there and mine in particular are Windows". This is a big deal in the open source community, though.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auburn, KY, United States.
    Posts
    156

    Default

    I can't tell you what your problem is mgh, unless you just don't have good support for OpenGL. I am running it on a 6 or 7 year old machine and getting framerates well in the 20s. The manual said that MOST NVidea cards have support for open GL, some may not. It also said many ATI/AMD cards do not but mine does just fine. A lot of it may be what version of the driver you have. I went to ATI's site and it showed a list of drivers and what they were compatible with.

    In contrast to your experience I get 30 fps with FS9 and not much less than that on FlightGear. I have not tried FSX because everyone on the forum has told me my computer will not run it acceptably.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jefferysitz View Post
    I can't tell you what your problem is mgh, unless you just don't have good support for OpenGL.

    As I said, FlightGear gives me an average 0f 37 fps and FSX gives an average of 122 fps for the same scenario, that is, default C172 at the end of runway 01L at the default San Francisco International airport.

    That suggests to me that Microsoft was better at dealing with graphics than FlightGear is - as they were in many other ways. For example, look at the detail - why no background hills in FlightGear?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgh View Post
    As I said, FlightGear gives me an average 0f 37 fps and FSX gives an average of 122 fps for the same scenario, that is, default C172 at the end of runway 01L at the default San Francisco International airport.

    That suggests to me that Microsoft was better at dealing with graphics than FlightGear is - as they were in many other ways. For example, look at the detail - why no background hills in FlightGear?
    What's the version of you graphics card driver ?
    http://communities.intel.com/thread/11894

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgh View Post
    There's no charge for DirectX
    Wrong: you need to buy Windows in order to use DirectX. That's very expensive (license and hardware requirements).

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgh View Post
    But how many people have the ability and the interest in writing code to develop it?
    Contributing to a flight simulator does not necessarily mean writing code. Creating textures, building sceneries, this can be done without writing a single line of code.

    And it's more interesting to improve sustainable software you can distribute yourself, than improving proprietary software without support that belongs to shareholders of a big corporation.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FlightGear v2.8.0 is available !
    By MdMax in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 09:58 AM
  2. Flightgear
    By EHE in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 10:46 AM
  3. FlightGear
    By dinger in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2002, 01:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •